Prospector, perhaps an analysis of critical thinking is in order here.
You state “
Well they cannot both be correct. We have either the Law Lords got it wrong or the Senior Law Lecturer has it wrong. Either way it is not a good look for the legal system.”
I agree with you there “.
…either the Law Lords got it wrong or the Senior Law Lecturer has it wrong.”
The point we are debating is
who got it wrong.
I have shown
1.Macfarland and Allinson’s conclusion that “
the very basis of the Law Lord’s ruling is a blatant contradiction.”
2.The chain of logic he used to reach this conclusion, and
3.The facts (premises) on which his argument is based.
For a valid conclusion both the premises and the logic have to be correct.
I contend this is the case here, and as you have not shown there to be any errors in either their premises or logic, then their conclusion “
the very basis of the Law Lord’s ruling is a blatant contradiction.” must stand.
When you state “
If that is the opinion a senior law lecturer has of his peers in the Highest court in the land, than(sic) his opinion on anything to do with Erebus is surely to be taken with a shovel full of salt.”, your argument has the form;
1.Macfarland disagrees with the Law Lords
2.They are his peers in the highest court in the land.
3.Therefore his opinion on anything to do with Erebus is invalid.
In Logical Argument 101 that gets you an “F”.
The conclusion does not follow from the premises, and you are using an “Appeal to Authority” fallacy.
( just because they are Law Lords does not prevent them from making the odd mistake or two).
I’ll get back to you later to deconstruct your assertion about an unauthorized descent.
In the meantime you could brush up on how to present a valid argument.
